Sarasota's silent majority

Published: Sunday, March 24, 2013 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:16 p.m.

Another city of Sarasota election, another round of low voter turnout.

In the election that culminated March 12, with six candidates on the ballot for two citywide seats, only 17 percent of Sarasotans eligible to participate cast ballots.

That turnout rate was lower than the consistently low numbers in previous elections. For example:

•In March 2011, with all three City Commission district seats contested, the turnout was 18 percent.

•In March 2009, with nine candidates seeking two at-large seats and a controversial proposal on the ballot, 21 percent of registered voters participated.

•In March 2007, with all three district seats and a bond referendum on the ballot, city turnout was about 20 percent.

To put some of these numbers into perspective: In the most recent election, only 6,153 voters -- in a city with 35,480 people registered and 52,000 residents -- cast ballots in a contest between candidates seeking to represent the entire city in at-large seats. Three of those candidates will be on the ballot in a May runoff, when turnout will likely be lower than 17 percent.

In elections for district seats, where only the residents of each district can vote for a candidate, here is how low turnout translates: Each winner, who has one of five votes on the commission, is generally elected by between 1,000 and 2,000 voters.

The pattern is clear: In Sarasota, the minority -- a small minority -- has ruled.

It is time for a citywide discussion about whether the status quo is in the best interests of Sarasota and its people.

Stand-alone elections in March do not necessarily result in low turnout. For instance, turnout for the town of Longboat Key elections -- conducted the same day as Sarasota's voting -- was 41 percent.

For whatever reasons, however, Sarasota is stuck with low turnout in city elections.

We do not know how to boost voter participation in Sarasota, so long as the city continues to conduct elections in March of odd-numbered years.

But we do know how Sarasota could substantially increase voter participation -- by scheduling city elections to coincide with general elections, conducted in November, during even-numbered years.

During general elections in those years, when either the president's or governor's race is on the ballot, voter turnout surges.

In Sarasota, turnout was 70 percent for the 2012 general election, which included voting for the presidency. Turnout was 50 percent in 2010, when the governor's office and other state (and federal) races were contested. Those numbers have been consistent for years.

The presidency clearly drives the greatest turnout, leading to differences with other even-year November elections. But the value of turnout routinely exceeding 50 percent should not be ignored.

Sarasota is hardly the only city to conduct stand-alone elections. Tampa, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Jacksonville have spring elections. Mid-size and small cities, such as Vero Beach and Tarpon Springs, do as well.

In Polk County, many of its 17 cities moved their elections to April from November due to concerns about crowded ballots.

On March 12, a majority of Lake Worth residents voted to change their elections to March from November. In Sarasota, however, voters have not had a recent opportunity to decide when to conduct city elections.

When Sarasota's Charter Review Committee convened in 2011, it considered a proposal to change the timing of municipal elections. The discussion was generally thoughtful; the committee members, appointed by the City Commission, voted 8-2 against recommending that the change be placed on the ballot.

Among the concerns was the potential for city candidates and issues to be crowded out by high-profile races. Other worries involved long general-election ballots, media coverage, a possible shortage of campaign volunteers and voter fatigue.

Any time voters face a long ballot, there is a concern that races at the end of the list will be ignored. However, in Venice and Bradenton -- both of which moved in recent years to general elections -- the falloff has been minor. As a result, voter participation in city government soared.

Consideration of voting changes requires thoughtful decision-making.

For example, if Sarasota elections were moved to even-numbered years, would the first round be scheduled for November or August, when partisan primaries are conducted? (The primaries don't attract many more voters than the stand-alone elections; plus, they are partisan and Sarasota has long conducted nonpartisan elections.) If the first city election were held in November, when would runoffs be conducted, if necessary? (Could the frequency of runoffs be reduced by requiring candidates seeking at-large offices to run for a specific seat? The City Commission considered and rejected this recommended change in 2011, but it is worth another look.)

The most important question is: Would the value of higher voter turnout outweigh the benefits of elections focused on the city?

For at least four years, members of the Editorial Board have raised concerns about Sarasota's low turnout rates, but recognized the points made by opponents of changing the election schedule.

After the Charter Review Committee rejected a ballot proposal, we hoped that the debate marked the beginning, not the end, of an effort to improve Sarasota's voter turnout. Following the 18 percent rate in 2011, we noted that the silence of so many voices during elections drains the city of the direction and civic energy it needs.

So now, after another round of voting with abysmal participation, we think it's time to deliberately consider whether -- and how -- Sarasota could improve turnout by changing its election schedule.

<p>Another city of Sarasota election, another round of low voter turnout.</p><p>In the election that culminated March 12, with six candidates on the ballot for two citywide seats, only 17 percent of Sarasotans eligible to participate cast ballots.</p><p>That turnout rate was lower than the consistently low numbers in previous elections. For example:</p><p>•In March 2011, with all three City Commission district seats contested, the turnout was 18 percent.</p><p>•In March 2009, with nine candidates seeking two at-large seats and a controversial proposal on the ballot, 21 percent of registered voters participated.</p><p>•In March 2007, with all three district seats and a bond referendum on the ballot, city turnout was about 20 percent.</p><p>To put some of these numbers into perspective: In the most recent election, only 6,153 voters -- in a city with 35,480 people registered and 52,000 residents -- cast ballots in a contest between candidates seeking to represent the entire city in at-large seats. Three of those candidates will be on the ballot in a May runoff, when turnout will likely be lower than 17 percent.</p><p>In elections for district seats, where only the residents of each district can vote for a candidate, here is how low turnout translates: Each winner, who has one of five votes on the commission, is generally elected by between 1,000 and 2,000 voters.</p><p>The pattern is clear: In Sarasota, the minority -- a small minority -- has ruled.</p><p>It is time for a citywide discussion about whether the status quo is in the best interests of Sarasota and its people.</p><p>Stand-alone elections in March do not necessarily result in low turnout. For instance, turnout for the town of Longboat Key elections -- conducted the same day as Sarasota's voting -- was 41 percent.</p><p>For whatever reasons, however, Sarasota is stuck with low turnout in city elections.</p><p>We do not know how to boost voter participation in Sarasota, so long as the city continues to conduct elections in March of odd-numbered years.</p><p>But we do know how Sarasota could substantially increase voter participation -- by scheduling city elections to coincide with general elections, conducted in November, during even-numbered years.</p><p>During general elections in those years, when either the president's or governor's race is on the ballot, voter turnout surges.</p><p>In Sarasota, turnout was 70 percent for the 2012 general election, which included voting for the presidency. Turnout was 50 percent in 2010, when the governor's office and other state (and federal) races were contested. Those numbers have been consistent for years.</p><p>The presidency clearly drives the greatest turnout, leading to differences with other even-year November elections. But the value of turnout routinely exceeding 50 percent should not be ignored.</p><p>Sarasota is hardly the only city to conduct stand-alone elections. Tampa, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and Jacksonville have spring elections. Mid-size and small cities, such as Vero Beach and Tarpon Springs, do as well.</p><p>In Polk County, many of its 17 cities moved their elections to April from November due to concerns about crowded ballots.</p><p>On March 12, a majority of Lake Worth residents voted to change their elections to March from November. In Sarasota, however, voters have not had a recent opportunity to decide when to conduct city elections.</p><p>When Sarasota's Charter Review Committee convened in 2011, it considered a proposal to change the timing of municipal elections. The discussion was generally thoughtful; the committee members, appointed by the City Commission, voted 8-2 against recommending that the change be placed on the ballot.</p><p>Among the concerns was the potential for city candidates and issues to be crowded out by high-profile races. Other worries involved long general-election ballots, media coverage, a possible shortage of campaign volunteers and voter fatigue.</p><p>Any time voters face a long ballot, there is a concern that races at the end of the list will be ignored. However, in Venice and Bradenton -- both of which moved in recent years to general elections -- the falloff has been minor. As a result, voter participation in city government soared.</p><p>Consideration of voting changes requires thoughtful decision-making.</p><p>For example, if Sarasota elections were moved to even-numbered years, would the first round be scheduled for November or August, when partisan primaries are conducted? (The primaries don't attract many more voters than the stand-alone elections; plus, they are partisan and Sarasota has long conducted nonpartisan elections.) If the first city election were held in November, when would runoffs be conducted, if necessary? (Could the frequency of runoffs be reduced by requiring candidates seeking at-large offices to run for a specific seat? The City Commission considered and rejected this recommended change in 2011, but it is worth another look.)</p><p>The most important question is: Would the value of higher voter turnout outweigh the benefits of elections focused on the city?</p><p>For at least four years, members of the Editorial Board have raised concerns about Sarasota's low turnout rates, but recognized the points made by opponents of changing the election schedule.</p><p>After the Charter Review Committee rejected a ballot proposal, we hoped that the debate marked the beginning, not the end, of an effort to improve Sarasota's voter turnout. Following the 18 percent rate in 2011, we noted that the silence of so many voices during elections drains the city of the direction and civic energy it needs.</p><p>So now, after another round of voting with abysmal participation, we think it's time to deliberately consider whether -- and how -- Sarasota could improve turnout by changing its election schedule.</p>